Calculating Gabion Stones: Construction, Advantages, and Applications

Building design
A detail on paving and open-space materials related to the calculation of gabion stones
Modern structures featuring gabion walls and wooden roofs—a contemporary design concept. Photo: stadinstudio

Gabions have long since ceased to be a niche solution in landscape architecture and civil engineering. As support structures, fences, noise barriers, and design elements in both public and private outdoor spaces, they have proven their worth because they are structurally reliable, environmentally friendly, and aesthetically versatile. Anyone planning to use gabions must address one key question: How much fill material is needed, what stone sizes and quantities are suitable for which structure, and how can the calculation of gabion stones be performed correctly from a methodological standpoint? The answer to this is not merely a mathematical problem, but combines materials science, structural logic, and planning expertise.

  • What Gabions Are and How They Are Structurally Constructed
  • Which types of stone and grain sizes are suitable for the fill and why
  • How to correctly calculate the number of gabion stones
  • What void ratios and bulk densities must be taken into account when determining quantities
  • What advantages gabions offer over other retaining and fencing systems
  • Where gabions are used in open spaces, civil engineering, and urban planning
  • What common design and construction errors occur and how to avoid them
  • How gabions can be integrated into the broader context of green infrastructure and biodiversity

What Gabions Are: Definition, Structural Design, and Material Logic

The term “gabion” is derived from the Italian word “gabbione,” which means “large cage.” At its core, a gabion is a wire basket filled with stones that is used as a construction element in earthworks, hydraulic engineering, and landscaping. The baskets are typically made of galvanized steel—often with an additional PVC coating—or stainless steel, and are assembled from prefabricated wire mesh panels. The mesh size of the wire mesh depends on the size of the stones used: it must be selected so that the stones cannot fall through the mesh, while at the same time leaving sufficient space for water drainage, aeration, and colonization by microorganisms.

The structural design of a gabion wall follows a clear principle. Individual baskets are stacked in layers on top of one another and connected to each other using binding wires or clips, creating an overall system that appears monolithic yet remains flexible. This system is not rigid but can accommodate minor settlements and ground movements without tearing or failing. It is precisely this property that makes gabions particularly suitable for use on embankments, slopes, and in areas with non-uniform subsoil. A geotextile membrane is typically installed between the baskets and the soil as a separating layer; this prevents fine material from the backfill area from being washed into the gabion filling and impairing its drainage function.

The fill stones are the true heart of the structure. They transfer the loads, give the gabion its mass and thus its stability, and significantly determine its visual appearance. Only broken, angular natural stones are used for the fill, as these interlock with one another and form a stable interlocking structure. Round pebbles or river gravel are unsuitable for load-bearing gabions, as they do not interlock sufficiently and tend to slide under load. However, they can be used for purely decorative gabions without a load-bearing function, provided the structural requirements are correspondingly low.

Overview of Stone Types, Grain Sizes, and Material Requirements

The choice of fill stones is one of the most important decisions when planning a gabion structure. Suitable types of stone include, above all, granite, basalt, limestone, sandstone, and gneiss. Compressive strength, frost resistance, and weather resistance are crucial factors here. Soft stones, such as certain types of sandstone or slate, can disintegrate under the influence of weather and destabilize the structure over the long term. For retaining structures subject to continuous stress, experts recommend stones with a compressive strength of at least 50 megapascals, such as basalt or granite.

The grain size of the fill stones depends on the mesh size of the wire cage and the structural requirements. Typical grain sizes range from 60 to 200 millimeters, and the stone dimensions must significantly exceed the mesh size of the cage in all three dimensions. As a rule of thumb, the smallest stone diameter should be at least 1.5 times the mesh size to reliably prevent the stones from slipping through. Common mesh sizes for gabion baskets are 60 by 80 millimeters or 80 by 100 millimeters, which correspond to stone sizes ranging from 100 to 200 millimeters. For exposed surfaces, larger, carefully selected STEINS are often layered by hand, while the core material is placed by machine.

The DIN EN 1997 standard (Eurocode 7) and the Technical Delivery Conditions for Aggregates in Road and Civil Engineering (TL Gestein-StB) provide guidance on the quality requirements for fill materials. For gabions in public spaces and civil engineering projects, the stones used should also be tested for frost resistance, as water absorption and freeze-thaw cycles can destroy porous stones within just a few winters. The relevant test procedures are specified in the European standards for aggregates (EN 13383), which specifically address hydraulic engineering stones and coarse aggregates for technical applications.

Calculation of Gabion Stones: Methodology, Void Ratio, and Quantity Determination

Calculating the number of gabion stones is one of the key planning tasks that determines material costs, transportation logistics, and the quality of construction. The starting point is always the gross volume of the gabion structure—that is, the total geometric volume of all baskets in cubic meters. This is determined by the length, width, and height of the planned gabion structure and can be calculated directly for simple rectangular shapes. For stepped walls, slope gabions, or irregular layouts, a detailed quantity calculation based on plans and cross-sections is required.

However, the gross volume does not correspond to the required amount of STEIN in metric tons or cubic meters of bulk material. Voids remain between the STEINS, which, depending on grain size, STEIN type, and installation method, account for a significant portion of the total volume. This void ratio—also known in technical terminology as pore volume or void volume—typically ranges between 30 and 40 percent of the total volume for crushed natural stone. This means that to completely fill a one-cubic-meter gabion basket, only about 0.60 to 0.70 cubic meters of solid stone is needed; however, as loose material, it occupies a larger volume than when compacted.

For practical calculations of the number of gabion stones required, the following procedure is recommended:

  1. Determine the gross volume of the gabion structure in cubic meters (length times width times height; for complex shapes, derive from plans).
  2. Determine the void ratio: For crushed STEINS with grain sizes between 100 and 200 millimeters, a void ratio of 35 percent is a realistic design value.
  3. Calculate the solid rock volume: Gross volume multiplied by the fill factor (1 minus the void ratio); thus, for a 35 percent void ratio: gross volume times 0.65.
  4. Determine the bulk density of the rock used: Granite and basalt have a bulk density of approximately 2.6 to 3.0 metric tons per cubic meter; limestone is approximately 2.4 to 2.7 metric tons per cubic meter.
  5. Calculate the amount of rock in metric tons: Solid rock volume multiplied by the bulk density of the rock.
  6. Include a allowance for breakage, oversize, and transport losses: In practice, an additional 5 to 10 percent is factored in.

A specific calculation example illustrates the methodology. A gabion retaining wall with a length of 10 meters, a height of 1.5 meters, and a depth of 0.5 meters has a gross volume of 7.5 cubic meters. With a void ratio of 35 percent, the solid rock volume is 7.5 times 0.65, or 4.875 cubic meters. With a bulk density of 2.7 metric tons per cubic meter for limestone, this results in a stone quantity of approximately 13.2 metric tons. With an 8 percent allowance for losses and excess, the order quantity increases to about 14.3 metric tons. This calculation serves as a basis for planning; the actual quantity required may vary slightly depending on the installation method and stone grading.

When calculating the number of gabion stones for exposed surfaces—where the outer layer is laid by hand using selected stones—it is important to note that the material consumption for this layer is higher than for the machine-filled core material. Steins laid by hand are packed more tightly, reducing the void ratio to about 25 to 30 percent. For the calculation, the exposed surface should therefore be listed separately and calculated using a lower void ratio.

Advantages of Gabions Over Other Retaining and Fencing Systems

Gabions offer a number of characteristics that make them superior to other systems for many applications in open spaces and civil engineering. Their most important advantage is their flexibility in response to settlement and ground movement. While concrete walls can crack and lose their stability due to uneven settlement, gabion structures adapt to ground movement without failing, thanks to their segmented, non-rigid structure. This makes them particularly suitable for slopes, slope stabilization, and areas with non-homogeneous or settlement-prone subsoil.

Drainage capacity is another key advantage. The high porosity of the stone material allows water to drain freely through the entire structure. Hydrostatic pressure, which can cause significant damage in impermeable concrete retaining walls, does not build up in gabions. In many cases, there is no need for complex drainage systems behind the wall, which saves costs and simplifies construction. From a planning perspective, this means that gabions can be used even in areas with high groundwater levels or heavy rainfall without the need for separate drainage measures.

From an ecological perspective, gabions are a valuable component of green infrastructure. The cavities between the stones provide habitat for insects, spiders, lizards, and small mammals. Joints and niches are colonized by mosses, ferns, and succession plants, provided that sufficient fine soil is introduced. In urban planning and landscape architecture, gabions are therefore deliberately used as habitat structures that create dry biotopes and rocky habitats in areas that would otherwise be impervious or intensively used. Compared to smooth concrete walls or steel pile walls, the ecological added value of a gabion structure is considerable.

Economically, gabions are competitive or more cost-effective than comparable solid structures in many applications. They require minimal material, the foundation requirements are often lower than for concrete walls, and their construction does not require specialized formwork or concrete pouring. Regional natural stones can be used directly as fill material, which shortens transport distances and integrates the structure into the local landscape. This is a key consideration for projects where sustainability and resource efficiency are planning objectives.

Applications in Landscape Architecture, Civil Engineering, and Urban Planning

The range of applications for gabions extends from small design elements in private outdoor spaces to large-scale civil engineering structures in flood control and road construction. In landscaping, gabion walls are commonly used as retaining walls on sloping terrain, as fences, as seating walls, and as space-defining elements in parks, public squares, and schoolyards. Their natural stone construction blends seamlessly into virtually any outdoor space concept, from nature-inspired park design to urban-industrial town squares.

In civil engineering, gabions are used for slope stabilization along roads, railroad tracks, and waterways. In hydraulic engineering, gabion bank protection is a proven alternative to concrete structures because it does not completely seal the riverbed and allows for the re-colonization of aquatic plants and macroinvertebrates. For flood protection, gabions are used as temporary or permanent protective barriers that can be quickly erected without the need for complex foundations. Their permeability prevents the buildup of water pressure differentials, which can lead to failure in impermeable structures.

In urban planning, gabions are gaining importance as multifunctional elements. Noise barriers made of gabions combine acoustic insulation—due to the mass of the stone material—with ecological function and aesthetic appeal. Green gabion walls, in which planting substrate is placed in the cavities and plants grow through the mesh, combine the advantages of gabion construction with the benefits of a green facade. Such hybrid solutions are of interest for climate adaptation in cities because they combine evaporative cooling, shading, and habitat functions in a single structural element.

Design and Construction Errors: What Often Goes Wrong with Gabions

Despite their structural robustness, gabions are not tolerant of fundamental design and construction errors. One of the most common mistakes is underestimating the foundation requirements. While gabions do not require a deep concrete foundation, they do need a stable, settled base. If the bottom layer of baskets is placed directly on natural soil that lacks sufficient bearing capacity, settlement can occur, causing the structure to deform and placing excessive stress on the connecting wires between the baskets. A carefully compacted gravel bed or a gravel base layer serves as the foundation in most cases.

Another common mistake involves calculating the size of the gabion stones and the resulting choice of material. Steins that are too small—which fall through the mesh or are at the very limit of the mesh size—lead to material loss and uneven filling. Steins that are too large cannot be packed tightly enough, increase the void ratio beyond the planned level, and can overload specific areas of the mesh. The coordination of mesh size, stone size, and void ratio must be carefully determined during the planning phase and should not be left to the supplier or on-site judgment.

Errors in connecting the baskets to one another also have serious consequences. If baskets are not sufficiently wired or clamped together, individual elements may spread apart under earth pressure or dynamic loads. Particularly with tall retaining walls that require multiple baskets stacked on top of one another, the quality of the connections is crucial for overall stability. Proper execution here requires adherence to the manufacturer’s specifications and, if necessary, the involvement of a structural engineer to verify the structure’s stability.

Finally, the importance of the geotextile as a separating layer between the gabion and the backfill is often underestimated. If this layer is missing or an unsuitable geotextile is used, fine material from the soil can be washed into the gabion fill. Over time, the voids become filled, the drainage function is lost, and hydrostatic pressure can destabilize the structure. The geotextile must be water-permeable but impermeable to fine material and must be installed in the correct position and with the correct overlap width.

Gabions as a Building Block of Sustainable Open Space Planning

Calculating the gabion stones is the technical core of a planning process that goes far beyond mere quantity determination. Anyone planning gabions makes decisions regarding material origin, life cycle assessment, habitat quality, and design impact all at once. Choosing regional natural stone reduces transportation emissions and anchors the structure in the local landscape character. The sizing of the void ratio influences not only the structural integrity but also the opportunities for flora and fauna to colonize the structure. The detailing of the joints and foundation determines the structure’s service life and thus its actual ecological footprint over its entire life cycle.

Gabions are not a panacea, nor are they a substitute for careful site analysis and structural planning. But they are a building element that combines technical reliability, design quality, and ecological function in a way that is rarely found in landscape architecture and civil engineering. For landscape architects, open-space planners, and engineers seeking solutions that are durable, adaptable, and environmentally compatible, gabions are an indispensable tool in their repertoire. The foundation for this is a methodologically sound calculation of the gabion stones, which consistently takes into account all relevant parameters—from void ratio and bulk density to the allowance for losses—and thus lays the groundwork for high-quality construction.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

44 residential units in Saint-Denis from DREAM

Building design

The new building with 44 residential units by DREAM. Photo: Cyrille Weiner

Two decades after the devastating fire in a dilapidated residential building on Rue Fraizier in Saint-Denis, a new construction project marks a turning point in the urban development of the north of Paris. The Parisian agency DREAM (Dimitri Roussel) has realized a residential ensemble with 44 units there – half for rent, half as subsidized ownership according to the “Bail Réel Solidaire” (BRS) model. It is the first project of its kind in Saint-Denis. However, the ambitious gesture is less about architectural showmanship and more about functional, mass-produced housing that strives for social integration.

The new building stands on a site that has been derelict since the fire in 2001. The fire at the time drastically exposed the dilapidated conditions in the old building, which was being used by shark tenants. The ensuing vacancy was perceived not only as a physical defect, but also as a social one. DREAM now sees the project as a contribution to “repairing” the neighborhood – and to re-establishing trust in the urban space.

The 44 residential units are spread across several buildings and follow a clear principle: as much individuality as possible within the standardized production. Almost all of the apartments are open-plan, with many facing in several directions. The majority have generous outdoor spaces – balconies or gardens at ground level. Interior qualities have also been considered: separate entrance areas with storage space, daylight kitchens that can be closed off if required and large window openings with panoramic views are all part of the repertoire.

The floor plan design is based on the charter of Plaine Commune, the inter-municipal association responsible for the area. The urban positioning of the buildings responds to morphological and climatic analyses of the site. A typical planning response is, for example, the staggering and orientation of the volumes to optimize daylight and natural ventilation.

In terms of design, DREAM dispenses with design experiments. Instead, the architectural expression arises from the materiality and rhythm of the façade. Wooden slats, metal panels and open balcony structures made from a combination of wood and metal structure the outer shell. Great importance was attached to prefabrication: The timber frame construction walls, including cladding, windows and shading elements, were manufactured entirely in the factory. The self-supporting balconies also arrived on site pre-assembled.

This strategy has several advantages: Firstly, it increases the quality of execution, and secondly, it reduces the construction time – a factor that plays a particular role in the densely built-up and socially sensitive Saint-Denis. All in all, the result is a residential building that relies on CO₂-reduced construction methods without playing this off visually.

What is striking about the project is the effort to establish communal zones alongside the private living space – a concept that is often referred to elsewhere as “third places”. In Saint-Denis, the elements are simple but effective: a large, inviting entrance area, green inner courtyards with passageways and roof gardens that serve as places to retreat and meet. The lobbies act as semi-public buffer zones between the street and the apartments. Visual references to the courtyard are intended to provide not only light but also social control.

The whole project was designed in collaboration with the public housing association Plaine Commune Habitat. The aim is to appeal to a heterogeneous group of residents – both people on low incomes and young families who want to build up property through the BRS model.

With a construction cost of around seven million euros and a living space of 2,775 square meters (SHAB), the project is within the scope of what is feasible in a subsidized context. The “NF Habitat” certification and compliance with the French thermal insulation regulation RT 2012 with a 20 percent reduction underline the ecological focus.

Those involved in the project include Bollinger+Grohmann (structural engineering), ENEOR (building services), Le Sommer (certification) and Topager for the landscape architecture. Cap-Exe was responsible for coordinating the various trades.

What can be deduced from the project in Saint-Denis for the current housing debate? Certainly not a new type. Rather, it shows how a combination of solid planning, serial production and municipal control can make a contribution to sustainable urban development – beyond creative exaggeration, but also without falling into banal functionality.

The architecture remains restrained but deliberate. It unfolds its effect through everyday use – as a place to live, to meet and to reappropriate a long-neglected urban space.

Read also: The Saint-Denis Pleyel Station by Kengo Kuma.

Ukraine war: Мы за мир

Building design

As a result of the war in Ukraine, the European architecture scene has quickly taken a public stand against the Russian war of aggression. G+L also stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and government.

BIG, David Chipperfield Architects, Foster + Partners, gmp, Herzog und de Meuron, MVRDV, OMA, Snøhetta, Zaha Hadid Architects – as a result of the war in Ukraine, which violates international law, the who’s who of the European architecture scene publicly opposed the Russian war of aggression in a very short space of time at the end of February/beginning of March 2022. Within just a few days, numerous offices expressed their solidarity with the people in Ukraine and with all those who stand for peaceful coexistence – above all via social media. In the case of Chipperfield, HdM, OMA and Zaha Hadid, the public statements were followed by an immediate halt to all construction projects in Russia. BIG also announced in a statement that the office would not be carrying out any projects in Russia or for the Russian government. However, it is not clear from this whether a construction freeze has been imposed or whether there are simply no Russian projects currently in progress.

First the governments, then the private sector. Today, our globalized world also makes it possible for corporations, companies or even planning offices to impose sanctions. So while Apple, Siemens, Starbucks, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the management consultancies KPMG, PWC, EY and Deloitte are suspending their business in Russia as a result of the war of aggression, or Elon Musk is actively supporting Ukraine with the help of his satellite internet service Starlink, including reception systems, the world of architecture is also drawing its own conclusions. This is worth a special look, as it was or is precisely non-democratic regimes such as Russia or China that have provided the big star offices with unique construction projects in recent years. The M+ Hong Kong designed by HdM only opened at the end of 2021. While at the turn of the year in Moscow, the Renzo Piano Building Workshop RPBW converted the GES-2 power station into a center for visual and performing arts for the V-A-C Art Foundation.

Jacques Herzog on democratic architecture

For us in the editorial team, this immediately (and once again) triggers the question of how political planning can be, but also how political planning must be. What is exciting in this context is that Jacques Herzog in particular has repeatedly publicly addressed the question of democratic architecture. You can think what you like of him and the HdM projects, but he takes a stand. As he did in an interview in 2020 with Lukas Gruntz from architekturbasel.ch. Referring to the historic urban development of St. Petersburg, Venice, Rome and Paris, he said here: “Perhaps more beauty is created in a non-democratic context because the context is more extreme, more radical.” But he also continued: “From our point of view, an enlightened and democratic society, architecture must be anchored in the population and ideally emerge from the needs of the population.” Sentences that should make us think. Now more than ever.

Ukraine war: Coop Himmelb(l)au under pressure over Crimea project

Lighthouse projects in non-democratic regimes must be better considered in future. I wonder what is going through Wolf D. Prix’s head at Coop Himmelb(l)au right now? His office was criticized even before the war of aggression. Since 2020, the Viennese have been planning two of the four cultural buildings that Vladimir Putin wants to be built by 2023. The particularly tricky case is the planned opera house on the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed by Russian occupiers in 2014 in violation of international law(more on this in an SZ-Plus article). With reference to the lighthouse project, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed economic sanctions against the Viennese architecture firm and six of its representatives on January 21, 2022.

Wolf D. Prix: Coop Himmelb(l)au is building an opera house, not barracks

According to an SZ.de article by Gerhard Matzig, who interviewed Prix on the subject, this was preceded a year and a half ago by threats from the Ukrainian embassy to Coop Himmelb(l)au. Prix would not be allowed to build the opera house in Sevastopol or the architectural firm would soon be ruined. And according to Gerhard Matzig in his article, Prix has now also been advised to distance himself from the project and Putin. When asked by Matzig whether he would do so, Wolf D. Prix sighed on the phone. Prix is of the opinion that he is not building a barracks, but an opera house. As a cultural project, this is not subject to the embargo regulations. Unsurprisingly, as of mid-March 2022, Coop Himmelb(l)au still has no statement on the Ukraine war.

Ukraine war: Russian planners make their mark

But now back to those who openly oppose the war. Because it’s not just the European star offices that are flying the flag. According to SZ.de, a total of 6,500 Russian architects, designers and urban planners also signed an open letter on the website of the Russian architecture magazine “Project Russia” between February 26 and March 4, 2022, calling for an immediate end to the war. The tragedy is that this appeal also fell victim to the “fake news” law against critical reporting on the Russian army signed by Vladimir Putin on March 4, 2022. Only a short version of the campaign with a picture of a dove of peace can now be seen on the site. It says here in Russian: “Unfortunately, we were forced to remove the text of the letter under threat of criminal liability under the law that came into force today. We are for peace!”

One profession, one passion

Meanwhile, however, the Union of Architects of Ukraine also called on the International Union of Architects to expel the Union of Architects of Russia from the organization. “Those who do not condemn Russia’s actions support them,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung quotes the President of the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, Oleksandr Chyzhevsky, as saying in a letter to the UIA. If you let this statement sink in, you have to ask yourself – even if you condemn Russia’s actions in the strongest possible terms – whether we really want to live in a world in which people from one industry, one profession, one passion, go against each other simply because of their nationality. For this very reason, the G+L editorial team would like to join our Russian colleagues: Мы за мир. We are for peace. And we condemn the Russian government’s attack on Ukraine, which violates international law, and stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and government.

Ukraine war: bdla and BAK also active

While German landscape architecture firms are still quite reluctant to express their solidarity, the bdla published an official solidarity statement #StandWithUkraine on March 2, 2022. The bdla declared its “deepest regret about the war in Ukraine, the loss of human lives.” It condemns this attack, which violates international law. The bdla’s thoughts are particularly with its colleagues from its partner association, the Guild of Landscape Architects of Ukraine. In the same letter, the bdla refers to the initiative of the Federal Chamber of Architects. This has set itself the goal of becoming active beyond expressions of solidarity. For this reason, the BAK is making its network available to the Ukrainian Association of Architects. The goal: sleeping places for refugees. Find out more here.